DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s response to the Non-final Office Action dated 12/04/2025, filed with the office on 02/23/2026, has been entered and made of record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (“IDS”) filed on 01/23/2026 has been reviewed and the listed reference has been considered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 23, 2026 with respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered; but they are not found persuasive. Specifically, in page 13 of its reply, Applicant argues in first paragraph that the claimed height of a feature of the pattern is not taught by Owen. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The size measurement of features is disclosed in Middlebrooks ¶0054: “The parameters of the patterns measured may include the shape, orientation and size of these patterns” but Middlebrooks does not explicitly disclose a height function. In an analogous field of endeavor, Owen discloses a height function that is based on the x and y directional measurements— Owen, ¶0059: “the shape can be defined in terms of a height function w(x,y), where the height is measured in the z-direction”, therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the known wafer feature measurements and height function to achieve the predictable result of obtaining a plurality of measurement values as a function of height. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues in page 13, third paragraph that Owen’s measurements would not provide feature-level height information. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Owen measures the variable height information and plots it in Fig. 4 – ¶0048: “FIG. 4 is a plot of an example of localized chip-level topography map, wherein the height scale runs from −0.2 microns to 0.2 microns”. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant continues to argue in page 15, first paragraph that Hess does not teach different threshold values for pixels in an image (an image is interpreted as a neightborhood of pixels). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hess discloses variable threshold values for pixels in a pixel neighborhood— Hess, ¶0064: “defect detection step including varying the defect threshold based on local geometry, applying multiple algorithmic detectors based on different smoothing filters applied to varying numbers of nearest neighbor pixels”. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Consequently, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middlebrooks et al. (WO 2017/102264 A1) as disclosed by Applicant in the IDS submitted on 11/14/2022, in view of Owen (US 2017/0162456 A1).
Regarding claim 1, A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform operations (Middlebrooks, ¶0018: “a computer readable medium having instructions recorded thereon, the instructions when executed by a computer implementing any of the above methods”) for decomposing error contributions from multiple sources to multiple features of a pattern printed on a substrate, (Middlebrooks, ¶0032: “determining contributions from different sources in a set of results measured from a lithography process or a substrate”) as a result of an exposure via lithographic process, (Middlebrooks, ¶0045: “the lithographic apparatus LA may form part of a lithographic cell LC, also sometimes referred to as a lithocell or lithocluster, which also includes apparatus to perform one or more pre- and post-exposure processes on a substrate”) the operations comprising: obtaining an image of the pattern on the substrate; (Middlebrooks, ¶0043: “an image of a patterning device pattern of a patterning device 18A onto a substrate plane 22A”) obtaining, using the image, a plurality of measurement values (Middlebrooks, ¶0045: “The measuring device may comprise an optical measurement device configured to measure a physical parameter of the substrate”) as (Middlebrooks, ¶0047: “The parameters of the patterns measured may include the shape, orientation and size of these patterns”) wherein the measurement values are obtained for different values of a parameter associated with (Middlebroks, ¶0054: “measurement of asymmetry in the target, and asymmetry in the target can be used as an indicator of a parameter of a lithography process, e.g., overlay error”) correlating, using a decomposition method, each measurement value of the plurality of measurement values to a linear mixture of the error contributions corresponding to a different value of the parameter associated with (Middlebrooks, ¶0071: “contributions 850 from independent sources are determined from the results 810 with optionally reduced number of dimensions. One way to determine the contributions is by independent component analysis (ICA)”) to generate a plurality of linear mixtures of the error contributions; (Middlebrooks, ¶0063: “results of the measurement are linear combinations (e.g., the sum) of the contribution from the systematic errors”) and deriving, from the linear mixtures and using the decomposition method, each of the error contributions. (Middlebrooks, ¶0068: “The contributions (S.sub.1, S.sub.2, . . . S.sub.m) can be determined by determining the matrix A”). Although Middlebrooks teaches an optical measurement device that measures the shape, orientation and size of patterns, however, Middlebrooks does not explicitly teach, obtaining a plurality of measurement values as a function of height.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Owen teaches, obtaining a plurality of measurement values as a function of height (Owen, ¶0059: “the shape can be defined in terms of a height function w(x,y), where the height is measured in the z-direction”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Middlebrooks using the teachings of Owen to introduce a height function obtained using the measurement in the z-direction. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of determining the deviation in pattern height from the height function. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Middlebrooks and Owen to obtain the invention in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, An apparatus (Middlebrooks, ¶0075: “a computer system 100 which can assist in implementing the methods and flows disclosed herein”) for decomposing error contributions from multiple sources to multiple features of a pattern printed on a substrate (Middlebrooks, ¶0032: “determining contributions from different sources in a set of results measured from a lithography process or a substrate”) as a result of an exposure via lithographic process, (Middlebrooks, ¶0045: “the lithographic apparatus LA may form part of a lithographic cell LC, also sometimes referred to as a lithocell or lithocluster, which also includes apparatus to perform one or more pre- and post-exposure processes on a substrate”) the apparatus comprising: a memory storing a set of instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions to cause the apparatus to perform: (Middlebrooks, ¶0075: “Main memory 106 may be used to store and/or supply temporary variables or other intermediate information during execution of instructions to be executed by processor 104”) obtaining, using the image, a plurality of measurement values (Middlebrooks, ¶0045: “The measuring device may comprise an optical measurement device configured to measure a physical parameter of the substrate”) as ((Middlebrooks, ¶0047: “The parameters of the patterns measured may include the shape, orientation and size of these patterns”) wherein the measurement values are obtained for different values of a parameter associated with (Middlebroks, ¶0054: “measurement of asymmetry in the target, and asymmetry in the target can be used as an indicator of a parameter of a lithography process, e.g., overlay error”) correlating, using a decomposition method, each measurement value of the plurality of measurement values (Middlebrooks, ¶0067: “When the combination is linear, the combination may be expressed by a matrix A”) to a linear mixture of the error contributions corresponding to a different value of the parameter associated with (Middlebrooks, ¶0071: “contributions 850 from independent sources are determined from the results 810 with optionally reduced number of dimensions. One way to determine the contributions is by independent component analysis (ICA)”) to generate a plurality of linear mixtures of the error contributions; (Middlebrooks, ¶0063: “results of the measurement are linear combinations (e.g., the sum) of the contribution from the systematic errors”) and deriving, from the linear mixtures and using the decomposition method, each of the error contributions. (Middlebrooks, ¶0068: “The contributions (S.sub.1, S.sub.2, . . . S.sub.m) can be determined by determining the matrix A”). Although Middlebrooks teaches an optical measurement device that measures the shape, orientation and size of patterns, however, Middlebrooks does not explicitly teach, obtaining a plurality of measurement values as a function of height.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Owen teaches, obtaining a plurality of measurement values as a function of height (Owen, ¶0059: “the shape can be defined in terms of a height function w(x,y), where the height is measured in the z-direction”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Middlebrooks and Owen references presented in the rejection of claim 1, apply to claim 15 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the apparatus recited in claim 15 is met by Middlebrooks and Owen.
Regarding claim 20 it recites a method with Steps corresponding to the instruction steps stored in the computer-readable medium recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of method claim 20 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding instruction steps stored in the computer-readable medium claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Middlebrooks and Owen presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim. Additionally, Middlebrooks teaches, A method for decomposing error contributions from multiple sources to multiple features of a pattern printed on a substrate as a result of an exposure via lithographic process, the method comprising: (Middlebrooks, ¶0005: “Disclosed herein is a method comprising: determining, using a computer, contributions from independent sources from results measured from a lithography process or a substrate processed by the lithography process”).
Claims 2, 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middlebrooks et al. (WO 2017/102264 A1) as disclosed by Applicant in the IDS submitted on 11/14/2022, in view of Owen (US 2017/0162456 A1) and in further view of Hess (US 2006/0161452 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Middlebrooks in view of Owen teaches, The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1. However, the combination of Middlebrooks and Owen does not explicitly teach, wherein the different values of the parameter correspond to different threshold values associated with the image in which each threshold value corresponds to a threshold of a pixel value in the image.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Hess teaches, wherein the different values of the parameter correspond to different threshold values associated with the image in which each threshold value corresponds to a threshold of a pixel value in the image. (Hess, ¶0064: “defect detection step including varying the defect threshold based on local geometry, applying multiple algorithmic detectors based on different smoothing filters applied to varying numbers of nearest neighbor pixels, and detecting single edge misplacements (CD errors) and/or dual edge misplacements (registration errors”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Middlebrooks in view of Owen using the teachings of Hess to introduce pixel based varying thresholding. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of applying threshold-based measurements in pixels for detecting defects/errors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Middlebrooks, Owen and Hess to obtain the invention in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Middlebrooks in view of Owen and in further view of Hess teaches, The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 2, wherein each measurement value corresponds to a critical dimension (CD) value of the feature at one of the different threshold values. (Hess, ¶0064: “defect detection step including varying the defect threshold based on local geometry, applying multiple algorithmic detectors based on different smoothing filters applied to varying numbers of nearest neighbor pixels, and detecting single edge misplacements (CD errors) and/or dual edge misplacements (registration errors”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Middlebrooks in view of Owen and in further view of Hess using the additional teachings of Hess to introduce measurement values corresponding to critical dimension values. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of applying threshold-based critical dimension measurements to detect defects/errors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Middlebrooks, Owen and Hess to obtain the invention in claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, it recites an apparatus with elements corresponding to the instruction steps stored in the computer-readable medium recited in claim 2. Therefore, the recited elements of apparatus claim 16 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding instruction steps stored in the computer-readable medium claim 2. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Middlebrooks, Owen and Hess presented in rejection of claim 2, apply to this claim.
Claims 4-6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middlebrooks et al. (WO 2017/102264 A1) as disclosed by Applicant in the IDS submitted on 11/14/2022, in view of Owen (US 2017/0162456 A1) in further view of Hess (US 2006/0161452 A1) and still in further view of Mack (US 2019/0164303 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Middlebrooks in view of Owen and in further view of Hess teaches, The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 2. However, the combination of Middlebrooks, Owen and Hess does not explicitly teach, wherein the error contributions include: an image acquisition tool error contribution that is associated with an image acquisition tool used to acquire the image, a mask error contribution that is associated with a mask used to print the pattern on the substrate, and a resist error contribution that is associated with a resist used to print the pattern, wherein the resist error contribution includes photoresist chemical noise and a shot noise associated with a source of a lithographic apparatus used to print the pattern.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Mack teaches, wherein the error contributions include: an image acquisition tool error contribution that is associated with an image acquisition tool used to acquire the image, (Mack, ¶0063: “a critical dimension scanning electron microscope, CD-SEM) are contaminated by measurement noise caused by the measurement tool”) a mask error contribution that is associated with a mask used to print the pattern on the substrate, (Mack, ¶0003: “bumps in the PSD caused by, for example, mask roughness or stress-related wiggle” and ¶0073: “sources of error (scanner aberrations, mask illumination non-uniformity”) and a resist error contribution that is associated with a resist used to print the pattern, wherein the resist error contribution includes photoresist chemical noise (Mack, ¶0057: “The resulting chemical reactions (including those that occur during a post-exposure bake) change the solubility of the resist, enabling patterns to be developed and producing the desired critical dimension (CD)”) and a shot noise associated with a source of a lithographic apparatus used to print the pattern. (Mack, ¶0058: “This randomness… referred to as “shot noise”, and is an example of a stochastic variation in lithography”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Middlebrooks in view of Owen, and in further view of Hess using the teachings of Mack to introduce tool noise, mask noise and shot noise. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of identifying different types of noise sources that affect an image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Middlebrooks, Owen, Hess and Mack to obtain the invention in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Middlebrooks in view of Owen, in further view of Hess and still in further view of Mack teaches, The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 4, further comprising: adjusting, based on the mask error contribution, one or more parameters of at least one of the mask or a source of a lithographic apparatus used to print the pattern. (Middlebrooks, ¶0046: “The measurement may determine whether a particular substrate is defective, may establish adjustments to the process and apparatuses used in the process (e.g., aligning two layers on the substrate or aligning the mask to the substrate”).
Regarding claim 6, Middlebrooks in view of Owen, in further view of Hess and still in further view of Mack teaches, The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 4, further comprising: adjusting, based on the resist error contribution, one or more parameters of at least one of the mask or a source of a lithographic apparatus used to print the pattern. (Middlebrooks, ¶0046: “The measurement may determine whether a particular substrate is defective, may establish adjustments to the process and apparatuses used in the process (e.g., aligning two layers on the substrate or aligning the mask to the substrate”).
Regarding claim 17, it recites an apparatus with elements corresponding to the instruction steps stored in the computer-readable medium recited in claim 4. Therefore, the recited elements of apparatus claim 17 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding instruction steps stored in the computer-readable medium claim 4. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Middlebrooks, Owen, Hess and Mack presented in rejection of claim 4, apply to this claim.
Claims 7-9, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middlebrooks et al. (WO 2017/102264 A1) as disclosed by Applicant in the IDS submitted on 11/14/2022, in view of Owen (US 2017/0162456 A1) in further view of Hess (US 2006/0161452 A1) and still in further view of Hansen (US 2004/0156030 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Middlebrooks in view of Owen and in further view of Hess teaches, The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 3. However, the combination of Middlebrooks, Owen and Hess does not explicitly teach, wherein obtaining the measurement values includes: obtaining a first signal having a first plurality of delta CD values from a plurality of measurement points at a first threshold value of the different threshold values, obtaining a second signal having a second plurality of delta CD values from the plurality of measurement points at a second threshold value of the different threshold values, and obtaining a third signal having a third plurality of delta CD values from the plurality of measurement points at a third threshold value of the different threshold values.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Hansen teaches, wherein obtaining the measurement values includes: obtaining a first signal having a first plurality of delta CD values from a plurality of measurement points at a first threshold value of the different threshold values, obtaining a second signal having a second plurality of delta CD values from the plurality of measurement points at a second threshold value of the different threshold values, and obtaining a third signal having a third plurality of delta CD values from the plurality of measurement points at a third threshold value of the different threshold values. (Hansen, ¶0277: “determining a plurality of CD variation (each of them being obtained by varying the value of the parameters over their predetermined range), the method then proceeds to step (F6) where a metric is calculated. This metric determines the overall CD variation induced by all of the parameters. More particularly, the metric calculates the quadratic sum of the parameters and determines an average CD variation for each source point.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Middlebrooks in view of Owen and in further view of Hess using the teachings of Hansen to introduce a plurality of critical dimension variations. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of identifying different sources of contributors based on the variations in different critical dimension measurements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Middlebrooks, Owen, Hess and Hansen to obtain the invention in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Middlebrooks in view of Owen and in further view of Hess and still in further view of Hansen teaches, The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 7, wherein each delta CD value is determined per threshold value and per measurement point, (Hansen, ¶0039: “calculating a metric representing CD variation of the lithographic pattern for the plurality of parameters and for the individual source points; and adjusting an illumination arrangement based on analysis of the metric”) and indicates a deviation of a CD value of a given feature from a mean value of a plurality of CD values of the features. (Hansen, ¶0240: “the average value of the CD variations may be calculated and used to estimate the aberration sensitivity”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Middlebrooks in view of Owen, in further view of Hess and still in further view of Hansen using the additional teachings of Hansen to introduce a deviation of a CD value. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of identifying the aberration in feature dimensions based on the variation of the CD value from the average CD value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Middlebrooks, Owen, Hess and Hansen to obtain the invention in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Middlebrooks in view of Owen and in further view of Hess and still in further view of Hansen teaches, The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 7, wherein each delta CD value indicates, at a given threshold value, (Hansen, ¶0209: “it should be noted that a variation of the threshold intensity in an aerial image simulation is equivalent to a CD variation”) a distance between a specified point on a contour of a given feature to a reference point on a reference contour of the given feature, (Hansen, ¶0232: “the difference in width between the left and right line (of this double line structure) as a function of lens aberration”) wherein the reference contour (Hansen, ¶0095: “a contour map representing CD variation”) is a simulated version of the contour of the given feature. (Hansen, ¶0232: “An example of CD variations generated by lens aberration is shown in FIG. 38a. This figure illustrates simulated CD variations (in arbitrary units) of a double line structure and more particularly”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Middlebrooks in view of Owen, in further view of Hess and still in further view of Hansen using the additional teachings of Hansen to introduce a method of CD measurement. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of identifying the aberration in feature dimensions based on the CD measurements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Middlebrooks, Owen, Hess and Hansen to obtain the invention in claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, Middlebrooks in view of Owen and in further view of Hess teaches, The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 2. However, the combination of Middlebrooks, Owen and Hess does not explicitly teach wherein the obtaining the measurement values includes: obtaining a first contour of the feature corresponding to a first threshold value of the different threshold values, obtaining a first CD value of the first contour, obtaining a second contour of the feature corresponding to a second threshold value of the different threshold values, and obtaining a second CD value of the second contour.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Hansen teaches, wherein the obtaining the measurement values includes: obtaining a first contour of the feature corresponding to a first threshold value of the different threshold values, obtaining a first CD value of the first contour, (Hansen, ¶0210: “These contour maps indicate the regions of the illuminator that generate an increase or a decrease in the hole CD with defocus, and the magnitude of the size offset”; also see fig. 41) obtaining a second contour of the feature corresponding to a second threshold value of the different threshold values, and obtaining a second CD value of the second contour. (Hansen, ¶0246: “The contour map in FIG. 44 also suggests that a quasar illuminations having poles larger (0.85/0.50Q45.degree.) than those initially selected in FIG. 43 (0.80/0.50Q30.degree.) may give better results (as it encompasses a larger area where CD variation is zero); also see fig. 41”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Middlebrooks in view of Owen, in further view of Hess using the teachings of Hansen to introduce a different contours. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of identifying different errors from different sources based on the measurement of contours of the detected features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Middlebrooks, Owen, Hess and Hansen to obtain the invention in claim 14.
Regarding claim 18, it recites an apparatus with elements corresponding to the instruction steps stored in the computer-readable medium recited in claim 7. Therefore, the recited elements of apparatus claim 18 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding instruction steps stored in the computer-readable medium claim 7. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Middlebrooks, Owen, Hess and Hansen presented in rejection of claim 7, apply to this claim.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middlebrooks et al. (WO 2017/102264 A1) as disclosed by Applicant in the IDS submitted on 11/14/2022, in view of Owen (US 2017/0162456 A1) in further view of Hess (US 2006/0161452 A1), and still in further view of Hansen (US 2004/0156030 A1) and yet in further view of Mack (US 2019/0164303 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Middlebrooks in view of Owen in further view of Hess and still in further view of Hansen teaches, The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 7, (Hansen, ¶0277: “determining a plurality of CD variation (each of them being obtained by varying the value of the parameters over their predetermined range)”) to a first linear mixture (Middlebrooks, ¶0063: “results of the measurement are linear combinations (e.g., the sum) of the contribution from the systematic errors”) of the image acquisition tool error contribution, the mask error contribution and the resist error contribution, (Middlebrooks, ¶0068: “The contributions (S.sub.1, S.sub.2, . . . S.sub.m) can be determined by determining the matrix A”) correlating each of the second plurality of delta CD values in the second signal to a second linear mixture (Middlebrooks, ¶0063: “results of the measurement are linear combinations (e.g., the sum) of the contribution from the systematic errors”) of the image acquisition tool, mask and resist error contributions, (Middlebrooks, ¶0068: “The contributions (S.sub.1, S.sub.2, . . . S.sub.m) can be determined by determining the matrix A”) and correlating each of the third plurality of delta CD values in the third signal to a third linear mixture (Middlebrooks, ¶0063: “results of the measurement are linear combinations (e.g., the sum) of the contribution from the systematic errors”) of the image acquisition tool, mask and resist error contributions. (Middlebrooks, ¶0068: “The contributions (S.sub.1, S.sub.2, . . . S.sub.m) can be determined by determining the matrix A”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Middlebrooks in view of Owen in further view of Hess and in still further view of Hansen using the additional teachings of Hansen to introduce a plurality of CD measurements. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of correlating CD variations with error source causing the variation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Middlebrooks, Hess and Hansen to obtain the above-described limitations in claim 10. However, the combination of Middlebrooks, Owen, Hess and Hansen does not explicitly teach, wherein; the error contributions include: an image acquisition tool error contribution that is associated with an image acquisition tool used to acquire the image, a mask error contribution that is associated with a mask used to print the pattern on the substrate, and a resist error contribution that is associated with a resist used to print the pattern, wherein the resist error contribution includes photoresist chemical noise and a shot noise associated with a source of a lithographic apparatus used to print the pattern.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Mack teaches, wherein; the error contributions include: an image acquisition tool error contribution that is associated with an image acquisition tool used to acquire the image, (Mack, ¶0063: “a critical dimension scanning electron microscope, CD-SEM) are contaminated by measurement noise caused by the measurement tool”) a mask error contribution that is associated with a mask used to print the pattern on the substrate, (Mack, ¶0003: “bumps in the PSD caused by, for example, mask roughness or stress-related wiggle” and ¶0073: “sources of error (scanner aberrations, mask illumination non-uniformity”) and a resist error contribution that is associated with a resist used to print the pattern, wherein the resist error contribution includes photoresist chemical noise (Mack, ¶0057: “The resulting chemical reactions (including those that occur during a post-exposure bake) change the solubility of the resist, enabling patterns to be developed and producing the desired critical dimension (CD)”) and a shot noise associated with a source of a lithographic apparatus used to print the pattern. (Mack, ¶0058: “This randomness… referred to as “shot noise”, and is an example of a stochastic variation in lithography”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Middlebrooks in view of Owen, in further view of Hess and still in further view of Hanson using the teaching of Mack to introduce tool noise, mask noise and shot noise. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of identifying different types of noise sources that affect an image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Middlebrooks, Owen, Hess, Hansen and Mack to obtain the invention in claim 10.
Regarding claim 19, it recites an apparatus with elements corresponding to the instruction steps stored in the computer-readable medium recited in claim 10. Therefore, the recited elements of apparatus claim 19 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding instruction steps stored in the computer-readable medium claim 10. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Middlebrooks, Owen, Hess, Hansen and Mack presented in rejection of claim 10, apply to this claim.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middlebrooks et al. (WO 2017/102264 A1) as disclosed by Applicant in the IDS submitted on 11/14/2022, in view of Owen (US 2017/0162456 A1) in further view of Hess (US 2006/0161452 A1), in still in further view of Hansen (US 2004/0156030 A1), yet in further view of Mack (US 2019/0164303 A1) and even in further view of Non-Patent Literature Lorusso et al. (Roughness Decomposition: An on-Wafer Methodology to Discriminate Mask, Metrology, and Shot Noise Contributions) as disclosed by Applicant in the IDS submitted on 11/14/2022.
Regarding claim 11, Middlebrooks in view of Owen, in further view of Hess, still in further view of Hansen and yet in further view of Mack teaches, The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10. However, the combination of Middlebrooks, Owen, Hess, Hansen and Mack does not explicitly teach, wherein deriving each of the error contributions includes: deriving, using the first, second, and third linear mixtures, and from each of the first plurality, second plurality, and third plurality of delta CD values: (a) a first output signal having a plurality of the image acquisition tool error contributions, (b) a second output signal having a plurality of the mask error contributions, and (c) a third output signal having a plurality of the resist error contributions.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Lorusso teaches wherein deriving each of the error contributions includes: deriving, using the first, second, and third linear mixtures, (Lorusso, page 1, ¶0002: “A linear nested model [3] is then used to quantify the three main variability components”) and from each of the first plurality, second plurality, and third plurality of delta CD values: (Lorusso, page 2, ¶0001: “the variance of the measured CD, σ2 (CDijk), in its primary components σ2 mask, σ2 shot noise, and σ2 metrology”) (a) a first output signal having a plurality of the image acquisition tool error contributions, (b) a second output signal having a plurality of the mask error contributions, and (c) a third output signal having a plurality of the resist error contributions. (Lorusso, page 6, section 2.7 and Figure 8: see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
113
337
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Middlebrooks in view of Owen in further view of Hess, still in further view of Hansen, and yet in further view of Mack using the teachings of Lorusso to introduce a decomposition error measurements. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of identifying the source of a particular error. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Middlebrooks, Owen, Hess, Hansen, Mack and Lorusso to obtain the invention in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Middlebrooks in view of Owen, in further view of Hess, still in further view of Hansen, yet in further view of Mack and even in further view of Lorusso teaches, The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein each error contribution is determined as a function of the corresponding error contribution at the first, second and third threshold levels. (Middlebrooks, ¶0132: “a cost function (which is defined as a function of selected design variables) based on process window metrics such as exposure latitude which could be predicted by optical imaging models from source point intensities and patterning device diffraction orders”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middlebrooks et al. (WO 2017/102264 A1) as disclosed by Applicant in the IDS submitted on 11/14/2022, in view of Owen (US 2017/0162456 A1), in further view of Hess (US 2006/0161452 A1), in further view of Hansen (US 2004/0156030 A1), still in further view of Mack (US 2019/0164303 A1), yet in further view of Non-Patent Literature Lorusso et al. (Roughness Decomposition: An on-Wafer Methodology to Discriminate Mask, Metrology, and Shot Noise Contributions) as disclosed by Applicant in the IDS submitted on 11/14/2022 and even in further view of Du et al. (US 2018/0059533 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Middlebrooks in view of Owen, in further view of Hess, still in further view of Hansen, yet in further view of Mack and even in further view of Lorusso teaches, The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein deriving each of the error contributions includes: determining a mixing matrix having a set of coefficients (Middlebrooks, ¶0068: “The contributions (S.sub.1, S.sub.2, . . . S.sub.m) can be determined by determining the matrix A”) that generates the first, second and third linear mixtures of the error contributions (Lorusso, page 1, ¶0002: “A linear nested model [3] is then used to quantify the three main variability components”) corresponding to each delta CD value from the first plurality, second plurality and third plurality of delta CD values, respectively, (Lorusso, page 2, ¶0001: “the variance of the measured CD, σ2 (CDijk), in its primary components σ2 mask, σ2 shot noise, and σ2 metrology”) (Lorusso, page 6, Figure 8: see below)
PNG
media_image1.png
113
337
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Middlebrooks in view of Owen, in further view of Hess, still in further view of Hansen, yet in further view of Mack, and even in further view of Lorusso using the additional teachings of Lorusso to introduce decomposing error contributions from different sources. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of identifying the cause of an error and take actions to minimize it. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Middlebrooks, Owen, Hess, Hansenm Mack and Lorusso to obtain the above-described limitations in claim 13. However, the combination of Middlebrooks, Owen, Hess, Hansen, Mack and Lorusso does not explicitly teach, determining an inverse of the mixing matrix, and using the inverse of the mixing matrix
In an analogous field of endeavor, Du teaches, determining an inverse of the mixing matrix, and using the inverse of the mixing matrix, determining (Du, ¶0047: “calculating the inverse matrix T.sup.−1 of the position disturbing matrix T; and calculating the correction value of each fragment using the inverse matrix T.sup.−1 and the position error ΔEpe.sub.i of the each fragment”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Middlebrooks in view of Owen, in further view of Hess, still in further view of Hansen, yet in further view of Mack, even in further view of Lorusso using the teachings of Du to introduce inverse matrix. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of decomposing a mixture of error sources and identify each source of error. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Middlebrooks, Owen, Hess, Hansen, Mack, Lorusso and Du to obtain the invention in claim 13.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHRAZUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Saini Amandeep can be reached at (571) 272-3382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEHRAZUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662